UT2003 Benchmarks

Discussion in 'Games' started by Schiffi, Aug 11, 2003.

  1. Schiffi macrumors 6502a

    Schiffi

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    Missouri
    #1
    Ctrl+click and Show Contents on the UT2003 app icon.
    Open the Benchmark folder
    Drag flyby-antalus.sh into the terminal
    This will lauch UT2003 and run the benchmark
    It will place the score into ~/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tounrament 2003/Benchmark/Results/"currentdate".log

    Here's mine:
    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
    MacOS 10.2.6
    PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 1000 MHz
    ATI Radeon 9000 OpenGL Engine

    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

    15.879810 / 63.016716 / 319.751587 fps rand[786162508]
    Score = 59.265350


    EDIT: I did the ini tweak and ran it at 800x600, with default details.

    EDIT -The Return- : Due to a request via IRC, here's the maxed out version

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
    MacOS 10.2.6
    PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 1000 MHz
    ATI Radeon 9000 OpenGL Engine

    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

    16.621387 / 42.498066 / 134.563553 fps rand[786162508]
    Score = 42.452629
     
  2. DaUlf macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    Here's my benchmarks on 15" FP iMac (32MB VRAM). Both with maxed out detail.

    1024x768

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
    MacOS 10.2.6
    PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 800 MHz
    NVIDIA GeForce2 MX OpenGL Engine

    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

    11.991295 / 17.326584 / 47.447895 fps rand[786162508]
    Score = 17.334225


    800x600

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
    MacOS 10.2.6
    PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 800 MHz
    NVIDIA GeForce2 MX OpenGL Engine

    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

    16.797169 / 26.410675 / 76.815216 fps rand[786162508]
    Score = 26.422396

    Edit- These were both with the demo. I haven't parted with the 50 bucks for the full version yet. So expensive =\
     
  3. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #3
    Here's what I got with folding@home running on both processors. I'll run it without it at a later date and add those scores here.

    This was run using default settings on the retail version.

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]

    MacOS 10.2.6

    PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 799 MHz

    NVIDIA GeForce2 MX OpenGL Engine



    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound



    16.777630 / 31.423065 / 90.928558 fps rand[373110190]

    Score = 31.431772

    Without folding:

    20.490986 / 31.462420 / 92.911270 fps rand[373110190]

    Score = 31.471800

    Big change?!?
     
  4. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #4
    Really great thread, I love the comparisons. Anyone got a powerbook they could benchmark?
     
  5. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #5
    This thread is off to a good start but I think something that would help is if people would say if they were using the demo or the full version. It says what build it is in the information you are giving but that doesn't tell me if it it's the demo or not at least not at this point. Also if you want to see more benchmark number peruse the UT2003 threads that were created when the Demo was released. I know I published several different number with different settings detailing different modifications I made.


    I will have my ATI9800 next week and will post the before and after scores then.
     
  6. Capn_Moho macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    #6
    I got a PowerBook quote for ya

    PowerBook Pismo G4 500 Rage 128:
    two frames per second. I forgot to quit Safari first.
     
  7. ollywilson2003 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    Hey do you have to have the Full version not the demo? Because its not working for me.
     
  8. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #8
    It should work with the demo it did for me back when the demo came out.
     
  9. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #9
    Using MacBandit's old GeForce 4 MX, I have new numbers.

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]

    MacOS 10.2.6

    PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 799 MHz

    NVIDIA GeForce4 MX OpenGL Engine



    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound



    31.451933 / 57.576050 / 202.443008 fps rand[373110190]

    Score = 56.367123

    I think that says quite a bit about the power of the humble GeForce 4 MX card in comparison to its older, weaker relative.

    It's certainly an alternative to those who have a need for speed but a lack of money.

    Now, what to do with this GeForce 2 MX? :D
     
  10. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #10
    What computer are you using and what settings do you have everything set at? Also have you done any .ini mods?

    Could you download the Demo version and test that so I could see how much difference there is? I'm thinking that you're getting double the frame rate of what you would get in the demo and if that is the case I'll buy the final version.
     
  11. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #11
    It's a dual 800 and everything is at default settings.

    Sorry, but I'm on dialup and can't download the demo to see how well it works.
     
  12. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #12
    Well I'm guessing there are some serious improvements between the demo and retail version. I have a Dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac with 1024MB of RAM with the G4MX I got an average of 28fps. With the ATI9800 I get an average of 28fps but it doesn't matter if I have every option turned off or every one on I get 28fps even at 1600x1200 as long as I keep anti-aliasing down to 2x I can run anisotropic filtering at max and have all the graphic goodies but it has an average max of 28fps. I think there was a lot of unoptimized code in the demo because you're showing some pretty impressive frame rates with the G4MX 32MB for any computer.
     
  13. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #13
    I just noticed you did the flyby benchmark. I never use the flyby benchmarks as they give an unrealistic number. To get a good test use the botmatch-asbestos.sh or botmatch-antalus.sh benchmarks. They will give you a much better impression of how your computer will hold up in a deathmatch fire fight.

    Just as an example I just did a comparison test. Here are my results with maximum everything at 1280x1024 with 2x Antialiasing and 16x Anisotropic Filtering.


    dm-asbestos..........botmatchexec.txt

    13.893566 / 34.193420 / 71.537827 fps
    Score = 34.204208

    dm-asbestos...........flybyexec.txt

    33.436409 / 81.335518 / 293.127563 fps
    Score = 69.267120

    and the one that you did.

    dm-antalus.............flybyexec.txt

    29.631105 / 64.661575 / 317.340393 fps
    Score = 60.624573
     
  14. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #14
    Well, excuse me for following the leader and being consistent. :D

    I might try to see what the others will do. I won't be running it at 1280x1024, in any case, as my monitor will only support up to 1024x768. :)

    It's amazing how much of a difference it makes. I was getting "Rampage" and "Godlike" in maps where I was previously unable to keep up and got killed more often than got to kill. Folding@home was going on in the background too.
     
  15. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #15
    Hahaha I didn't even notice that everyone was using the flyby. Shame on them. Using a flyby to pump up there numbers just to impress everyone.

    Ah, yes better graphics cards are the holy grail when it comes to better game play. I know I've gone up another difficulty level since going to the ATI9800. I was playing at Skilled and I have now moved u to Adept.

    I'm thinking about hosting a game server one of these nights either dedicated without me playing or with me playing on or the other I haven't decided. In any case I'm going to limit it to MacRumors members so we can get some fair game play.
     
  16. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #16
    botmatch is only indicative...

    of performance if you only play bot matches. It is an OK cpu benchmark.

    The flyby is good for measuring video card performance.

    Online performance will be some where in between. Too bad there is no FRAPS application for Mac. Maybe we should build one.
     
  17. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #17
    I have been playing since the PC alpha was leaked. Can I play.

    :^)

    Somebody want to buy a PC? My sig is too long!

     
  18. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #18
    Sure I'll give you $100 for one of them. I just need something to upload maps to my GPS.

    If I decide to host a server I'll give out a limited number of passwords so that it'll be first come first serve and only for those people who I know.
     
  19. J. Charles Holt macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville, CO
    #19
    UT 2003 on a G5

    I recently got a new 1.6 GHz G5 (with an NVIDIA GeForce 5200), and thought I'd try some of these benchmarks. First, a few notes:

    * This was running the demo.

    * My machine currently has the stock 256 MB of RAM. I had some disk access during the tests, which I suspect may have been memory swapping (top reports 42 MB free, and I've got oodles of pageouts). Thus, while these tests certainly show how well a stock G5 performs, I don't think they're representative of what it's capable of. I'm expecting more RAM on Tuesday, I'll rerun the tests then.

    * All graphics options are at their highest settings, and the resolution was 800x600.

    * Processor Performance is at the Highest setting in Energy Saver.

    Here's the results of all of the benchmarks, in alphabetical order (this includes flybys and botmatches):

    UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
    MacOS 10.2.7
    Unknown CPU @ 1600 MHz
    NVIDIA GeForce FX OpenGL Engine

    dm-antalus?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

    8.310872 / 25.604261 / 61.184704 fps rand[928872846]
    Score = 25.654833

    ---

    br-anubis?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

    7.221740 / 35.195702 / 65.888817 fps rand[1751508966]
    Score = 35.216507

    ---

    dm-asbestos?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

    9.384971 / 33.542648 / 78.569710 fps rand[837379309]
    Score = 33.551178

    ---

    ctf-citadel?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt

    5.783712 / 22.221889 / 50.982838 fps rand[270401441]
    Score = 22.246674

    ---

    dm-antalus?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

    27.393684 / 79.753098 / 302.007843 fps rand[786162508]
    Score = 72.632530

    ---

    dm-asbestos?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=71 -nosound

    39.534309 / 110.748245 / 302.216431 fps rand[1447920047]
    Score = 78.422821

    ---

    ctf-citadel?game=engine.gameinfo exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/flybyexec.txt -benchmark -seconds=77 -nosound

    14.745591 / 56.680073 / 164.601562 fps rand[631030102]
    Score = 55.779697
     
  20. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #20
    Re: UT 2003 on a G5

    That's not bad. Are you planning on getting more RAM? If you are please post again when you do. If and when you give us an updated post I will match your settings using UT2003 Demo with my MDD PowerMac with my ATI9800 so we can compare different machines and different graphics cards. It will be interesting to see if the overall system bandwidth of the G5 will give it an advantage or if the video card is more important.

    You can read my last tests above using my ATI9800 but my resolution was higher than yours and I have the Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering turned on which I know you don't have.
     
  21. J. Charles Holt macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville, CO
    #21
    Re: Re: UT 2003 on a G5

    I am expecting an additional gig of RAM tomorrow, and I'll retest everything then. I don't remember seeing any options for antialiasing or anisotrophic filtering, but I haven't poked around in the .ini file at all.
     
  22. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #22
    The 5200 is a HUGE bottleneck here. In raw terms it is only slightly faster than a GF4MX. If you can get a RADEoN 8500 or GF 4Ti it would give you a big boost. You might find one of these cards for fairly cheap (the 8500 should be around for <$150).

    The 9800 might be overkill for a 1.6GHz system. Wait until some folks start posting benchies on xlr8yourmac before spending all that dough.

    I have a 9800P in my PC, and while its nice to play games comfortably at 10*7 6xAA and 16xAF with max settings, the image quality is not THAT noticeable. Only new games like Half Life 2 will need that kind of HP.

    But a 9800 will be nice to have when EF2, Splinter Cell and Raven Shield come out on the Mac.
     
  23. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #23
    Re: Re: Re: UT 2003 on a G5

    There are no settings for AA or AF. You have to have the ATI9800 which comes with a control panel which forces any game to use those features. I know you're going to ask but no the control panel will not work with any other video card including ATI products. Not even the ATI9700.
     
  24. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #24
    I've been using an ATI9800 in my Dual/1GHz/MDD PowerMac for about a month now and I have to say that it is very very nice. It's the only way on a Mac currently to get AA and AF in all but a couple games because those features aren't really supported on the Mac yet. Also I find that even in games like QuakeIII 2xAA and 8x or more AF is quite noticeable. It makes floors and ceilings look real instead washed out oil paintings. Also Halo is suppose to be DirectX9 so it will require this card to do the real cool stuff also. I picked mine up for $330 and I have to say it was one of the best purchases I've made for this Mac. I had a G4MX before which was great but this thing is totally awesome and it also made the GUI run smoother because of Quartz Extreme.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    i have been eyeing the 9800 and hope the wife will get it for me fo xmas to replace the geforce3,, halo will be running in opengl for mac if im not mistaken and directx9 is windows only format or am i wrong?
     

Share This Page